1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 21:44 on Sunday 22 August 2010, |
2 |
covici@××××××××××.com did opine thusly: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 20:57 on Sunday 22 August 2010, |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > covici@××××××××××.com did opine thusly: |
8 |
> > > > There is a way to downgrade for the brave. |
9 |
> > > > |
10 |
> > > > |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > > quickpkg glibc |
13 |
> > > > move the 2.11.? version ebuild you want to your local overlay. |
14 |
> > > > Edit it and find the check that disallows downgrades. Comment it out. |
15 |
> > > > Mask glibc2.12 |
16 |
> > > > update glibc |
17 |
> > > > |
18 |
> > > > |
19 |
> > > > |
20 |
> > > > At this point it's probably very wise to rebuild at least system, |
21 |
> > > > then revdep- rebuild. Note that rebuilding system might fail in |
22 |
> > > > which case you are really up the creek. |
23 |
> > > > |
24 |
> > > > |
25 |
> > > > |
26 |
> > > > Feel free to rip to pieces the dev that committed this version. It |
27 |
> > > > could not possibly have undergone decent testing |
28 |
> > > |
29 |
> > > I have another idea -- what would I have to restore from backup to |
30 |
> > > completely cancel the entire update process I have done since yesterday |
31 |
> > > -- and then I could mask off the bad glibc and be back to something at |
32 |
> > > least somewhat consistent? |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > I too have another idea - look at emerge.log and tell us what you emerged |
35 |
> > since yesterday. Then restore those packages. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> If I tried that -- how would I downgrade glibc in the process -- I am |
38 |
> sure I could figure out all the packages, but that downgrade scares me |
39 |
> -- would I do the packages in reverse order, or what? I also changed my |
40 |
> gcc before this update, I could certainly reverse that as well. |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
It all depends on what tools you have available and how many packages were |
44 |
upgraded between yesterday and today. If you have tarballs for at least system |
45 |
in your packages dir, then just merge the old ones back. If not, then |
46 |
downgrade glibc and either emerge -e system or run revdep-rebuild. |
47 |
|
48 |
gcc is not a major issue, it simply builds runnable code and links to other |
49 |
stuff. As long as the ABI didn't change, and it didn't, gcc will not cause any |
50 |
relevant problems. The real problem is glibc which provides the C library. |
51 |
Almost everything links to that and it's interfaces can and do change. So |
52 |
packages built since that upgrade may well break with a downgrade. |
53 |
|
54 |
But like I said the best approach will depend on what packages are involved |
55 |
and you still haven't provided that list. I used to have a crystal ball that |
56 |
could gaze into your mind and your disk to find these answer, but ironically |
57 |
it too is now broken by the very same glibc upgrade you are dealing with. So |
58 |
you must look into this yourself. However, it's not all bad news - at least my |
59 |
fee to you will not increase. |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |